Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 19, 2010 2:00am-2:30am PST

3:00 am
final commendation that is going to be presented from district 9. supervisor campos: good afternoon, everyone. i would like to call upon the california coalition for domestic worker rights. a lot has been said in the last few days about the plight of domestic workers. it usually takes a high-profile case to bring attention to this issue. we have heard a lot about what a specific candidate for governor did or did not do with respect to her domestic worker.
3:01 am
eventually, time will tell what meg whitman knew and did not know and what she did or did not do. in light of the fact that some attention has been provided to this issue, i want to speak about a very important issue that sadly does not get a lot of attention. that is the working conditions that currently affect domestic workers not only in san francisco but throughout california. domestic workers are a community that unfortunately has been overlooked time and time again. today, i would like to recognize a coalition, the california coalition for domestic worker rights, which has been working for quite some time to make sure that very basic rights are provided to domestic workers.
3:02 am
through their work, they have pointed out that even those of domestic workers are the -- even though domestic workers are the bedrock of a functioning society because they allow other workers to be able to work, the domestic worker industry is riddled with abuse, mistreatment, and labor violations. they are mostly female and mostly immigrant. they are especially vulnerable due to the fact that the work is work of an isolated nature, where women mostly work behind closed doors and are out of the public eye. more importantly, and i think that many san franciscans would be surprised, but these workers are actually expressly excluded from many of the protections that are accorded to most
3:03 am
workers in the state of california and throughout the country. they are expressly excluded from the national labor relations act, which means they are unprotected when asking for basic rights. they are unable to engage in collective bargaining. something as basic as overtime pay is not something that is provided to them. something as basic as safe working conditions is not something that is guaranteed to them. they are currently excluded from protections under the california occupational safety and health act. in terms of compensation, there is no protection that they actually get paid for the number of hours they work. sick leave is a luxury that is not provided to them, let alone
3:04 am
vacation time. the list goes on and on, which is why the coalition for domestic workers rights has been asking the state of california for quite some time to pass a domestic worker bill of rights. that effort is currently under way thanks to the leadership of our san francisco assembly member, tom amiano. with that background, i would like to recognize the tremendous work of these very courageous women. for your tireless efforts to organize and build a collective power of domestic workers, up for your campaign to pass a domestic worker bill of rights in california in order to eliminate discrimination against domestic workers in california employment laws and create other industry- appropriate protections, and for
3:05 am
organizing model which places domestic workers front and center as the basis for all your work. on behalf of the board of supervisors, it is my privilege to honor your work. thank you. [applause] >> [speaking spanish] [applause] >> i am with the collective. i am also accompanied by my co- worker.
3:06 am
on behalf of the coalition of domestic workers, i think supervisor -- thanks supervisor campos for all the support you have shown to domestic workers. thank you. [applause] president chiu: at this time, why don't we move to our first of four hearings? we are going to move to the miracle mile item. do you have any comments you want to make initially,
3:07 am
supervisor campos? please call items 24 and 25. this is the first of four hearings we are born to have. we appreciate your patience. >> item 24 is the board of supervisors sitting for a public hearing from persons interested in a proposed project to establish the mission miracle mile business improvement district. president chiu: we will hear testimony on proposed authorization of the business improvement block on the 2500 block of mission street. at the conclusion of this hearing, the department of election will tabulate the ballots including those received during this public hearing and report that tabulation to the
3:08 am
clerk of the board, who will inform us at the board of supervisors. if the number of pellets is received such as it is not feasible to accurately tabulate the ballots, the board may recess the meeting to a later date for purposes of tabulation. the board of supervisors will not approve assessments if there is a majority protest. that exists if the ballots in opposition to the assessment are more than those in favor of the assessment. for everyone in the public, at today's proceeding will be as follows. we will hear from all speakers in support of the assessment district for up to 2 below minutes each, then speakers in opposition. if a property owner wishes to change his or her vote, please indicate that to your testimony, after which you will be provided with an affidavit and a ballot. after the hearing closes, the
3:09 am
ballots will be counted. it sounds like the district supervisor does not have any introductory comments. if there are members of the public who wish to speak in support of the assessment district, please step up and you will have up to two minutes to speak. >> good afternoon. philip lesser. i would like to commend my neighbors for taxing themselves. evidently, cbs news found this so noteworthy they put it on the 6:00 news. what are they doing with the money? they are creating a safe, clean, green oasis in the middle of the inner mission, the 2500 block between 21st and 22nd streets. that streak is the one that has the floral baskets on it. it has a spotless sidewalk. if you get there at 7:00 in the
3:10 am
morning, you will not see any graffiti because it was all taken off at 6:00. the majority of the property owners petition to have a ballot which will be opened in a few minutes. i am here on their behalf to land total support to the reauthorization of this business improvement district. thank you very much. president chiu: are there any other members of the public who wish to speak in support of the district? >> yes. i live in district 6. i know that mission and district 6 run close to each other. at 24th and 25th and mission, it is a really nice place. they have places where you can sit. the mission and castro district near public transit, the provide seating where you can sit a little while. i think like you all have said, this city is for everybody.
3:11 am
the green mile, the miracle mile in mission street. it is going to be good for the city. maybe we can get someone in district 6 also to look at what you all are doing there. you always feel safe in the mission and the castro, different from what all areas called the mason-dixon dividing line. right now, once you go up astro -- go up castro, this is the major dividing line. thanks god that mission is having some miracles there. maybe in district 6 when we get our next great supervisor we will be able to do that here on market street. president chiu: any other members of the public that wish to speak in support of the assessment districts? let me see if there are members of the public who wish to speak in opposition.
3:12 am
seeing none, at this time i will close the public hearing. the board is going to continue with the remainder of our agenda while the ballots are being tabulated. when the have been tabulated, our clerk will inform us. at this time, please call the items related to 222 second street. >> items 20 through 23 are concerned with 222 second street. it affirms the certification of a environmental impact report for the office project, 21 is a motion affirming that report. 22 is the motion reversing the certification by the planning commission, and item 23 is a motion directing the clerk to prepare findings reversing the
3:13 am
certification. president chiu: this is an appeal of the final environmental report. for this hearing, we will be considering the adequacy, the accuracy, the sufficiency, in completeness of the final eir. we will first hear from the appellant who will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds for the appeal. we will then hear from individuals who wish to speak in support. we will then hear from the planning department, who will describe the grounds for their certification up to 10 minutes. we will hear finally from the party of interest. we will then hear from person speaking on behalf of the real party of interest for up to two minutes per speaker. the appellant will have up to three minutes for rebuttal. supervisor daly, nebraska
3:14 am
initial comments? why don't we move to miss hester. >> i am the attorney for the condo owners. the project before you is a 350 foot building that needs a height increase on part of the site. it is an office building. 430,000 square feet. that is a very large building. it has the maximum floor area basis allowed. it is a very big building. it needs a height increase. this building is at the corner of second and howard street. what is diagonally across the intersection, on the southwest -- on the northeast corner is the outline of the transit district. second street in new montgomery st. comprise a historic district
3:15 am
in the south of market. they also comprise the only two streets in the south of market that are designated for sunshine protection on the sidewalks. it is extremely unique in the city. what we have is an area that has undergone a transition, a massive transition in the past 25 years. when the downtown plan was approved by the city in 1985, basically this was the outskirts of the financial district. they were wanting to push the financial district down south of market. what has evolved is not only the transit district that has the transit terminals coming in, but also a lot of housing. there is housing on montgomery. there is housing on howard street. there is housing on second street. there are families there.
3:16 am
you saw people from the richmond. there are families with kids in this area. that is one of the issues you will be hearing from my clients that are going to be testifying. they are going to talk about how the ier ignores looking at this the way it is now, as a mixed use area. this is not a financial district even though it is a financial district type of building. it is a mixed use district. it is what we have evolved in the south of market in the past couple of years. district 6 has undergone massive transformations. this is one of the transformations. one of the issues i want to direct your attention to is on the screen. the policy from the downtown plan tells the city how it is supposed to look at this site.
3:17 am
this is from, and responses, page 26. the downtown plan policy to-one in courage prime downtown office activities to grow, as long as undesirable consequences of such growth can be controlled. undesirable consequences are impact related to out of scale office development on neighborhood character -- in this case a lot of housing -- loss of historic resources, increased shading of streets and publicly accessible open space -- it will show the park on top of the transit center -- increase pedestrian level winds -- this has win level violations -- increased traffic and parking demands, pollutant emissions -- the car garage is a off a major street -- energy
3:18 am
use, overburden public transit, increase traffic noise, which is a big concern when you have kids and family, increase pressure on housing supply from increased employment, and what does not apply here is conversion of housing. it is a vacant lot at this point. that is the policy that should guide how the project is looked at in the eir. it tells you what are the issues that have to have particular attention to. there are three levels of shadow analysis. one is missing from the eir. when we adopted the downtown plan, there was a requirement for some might access to public sidewalks in t3 districts. the streets in the south of market art second street and new montgomery.
3:19 am
all the other streets protected in the downtown plan are north of market. these are the only to streets. the sunlight analysis -- the shuttle analysis -- how was it done? it was done in a memo that was done by the developer and given to staff. it was not in anin the ier. -- eir. it was not tested, it was not commented on. the analysis of shadows under prop k -- we have shadows under prop k. we have shows that are particularly important on second street. you do not have that tested or analyzed with the impact on housing. i am going to get back to shadows later on, in my closing, but you need to hear about how
3:20 am
this affects families in the south of market that live near here. as i said, this is right across from the transit district area. thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. i have to go pick up my daughter in 15 minutes so i will be well within the 12 minutes. my wife and my two year-old are part of the 900 families that lived in two blocks of this proposed project. if i can have the projector, this is a picture of the proposed project that is basically 105 feet taller than the tallest building in the neighborhood. if you have ever had a glass of cabernet at umbria and you took
3:21 am
a look at one of hawthorne, this is 100 feet taller. our building is buried at the back. there are 900 families that live within a few blocks of 222 second street. there are another 300 units that have been approved. in the comments to the eir, which i urge you to look at, you have 93 families 100 feet away. st. regis is the only luxury building. all the other buildings -- we are all middle-class people, with the exception of the st. regis. 83 families at here.
3:22 am
100 families here. 100 families here. two new projects are approved -- on second street and a building literally 40 feet away with a total of 340 families. not once since the sponsors started this project -- he did not receive community input in four years. they never came to us to ask us if we wanted a playground or open space. the only time we heard from them was the day before we approached members of the planning commission. the population in so ma has increased 24% between 2000 and 2008. there is a mother going on a crusade to build more playgrounds for her kids, and
3:23 am
for the rest of the neighborhood. it is undeniable that we have families here in this neighborhood. there are six kindergartens, including the one i am going to rush to, within a few feet of this project. there are 600 kids circulating in this neighborhood at all times. we have all moved our families to the site where this proposed project is because of you, because of conscious san francisco policy, years of precedent, years of zoning laws to move over families into the city and create this neighborhood. there is no compelling reason to change 20 years of precedent and grant the zoning exceptions, which is what we are opposing here. to continue on the shuttle impact, this proposed project
3:24 am
covers 10,000 square feet of new roof talk -- rooftop park at the terminal. president chiu: any questions to the appellants? are there members of public -- of the public that wish to speak? line up in the center aisle. two minutes per speaker, please. first speaker. >> my name is greg patterson. i am a resident of second street. i speak on behalf of a number of people in the neighborhood, from my building and other buildings i have spoken with. the best way i can summarize this is that there has to be a better fit. this is a historic neighborhood. it is becoming a social center, a corridor from market street to
3:25 am
pull some -- fulsom, which is planned to become a major social center as well. there are families in this neighborhood, as are monde -- as armand mentioned. people are not opposed to building, but they are opposed to buildings that do not make sense, that have not considered the character of the neighborhood. how are you going to feel 20 years later if you had the opportunity to maintain a very special area and instead, as one of the developers called it at the commission meeting, a fortress is stomped down into the middle of this neighborhood? it is not just a place. it is a neighborhood. i think one of the head designers of the project, with all due respect to their efforts, was asked by the commission, who only passed this
3:26 am
vote narrowly, and people who voted in favor indicated they were voting in favor for now, but it was asked whether it could be done differently. he was silent. the obvious answer was yes. we would like to see some collaboration with the stakeholders, the small businesses in the area, the residents, to find a way to build in a way that makes sense for the neighborhood. thank you very much. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is penny. i live at 246 second street. the eir is described as having really small compromises that are minor in dealing with the overall benefit of the building. there is a little wind up violation -- wind violation, a
3:27 am
moderate traffic impact. that is a question of what it means for the city. but the positive benefits of the city belonging to the city. the negative impact belong to the residence. we will see a decrease their quality, -- decreased air quality, increased ambient noise even after the construction is done, the diversion of the tunnel for caltrans, and further disruption in the neighborhood. we would love to have a building be built in san francisco as much as anyone else. we just think it ought to
3:28 am
include some benefits for the neighbors to mitigate those impact. genuine green open space, a street facade that mirrored the current neighborhood, and the ceqa guarantees that we do have a wind and shadow regulations that we follow. thank you very much. >> i live at 242nd street. in the eir comments and responses, there are significant
3:29 am
problems this impact would potentially have that would require additional structural reinforcements. some of the cut and cover plans were neither adequate responses and were totally ignored in the conditions by the planning department. the other significant issue i wanted to speak to is basically the miss characterization of the neighborhood that people have spoken on. just because we are in this square here, this is based on this as being an office development area. in fact, there were 885 residential housing units built within two blocks of the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on